Russian Nuclear Posture superior to the US's?

Originally posted by rogue1
You still haven't explained how Russia controls most of the world.

Russia does so either by deploying soldiers to countries it wishes to control, or by cutting off oil and natural gas. Remember when the Russians cut
off natural gas to Europe 1 year ago? Remember when they cut off oil to Europe 3 months ago? Do you really think that the Greeks etc. don't care
whether they get oil or not?

Originally posted by rogue1
You still haven't explained how Russia controls most of the world.

Russia does so either by deploying soldiers to countries it wishes to control, or by cutting off oil and natural gas. Remember when the Russians cut
off natural gas to Europe 1 year ago? Remember when they cut off oil to Europe 3 months ago? Do you really think that the Greeks etc. don't care
whether they get oil or not?

Hmm right, so your definition of most of the world is Europe ? I suggest you get out an atlas

BTW, they don't control Europe because they cut
off the gas.
Also, which countries do teh Russians deploy troops to, to exert their control.

I think you may be slightly derranged. You hvae shown nothing to back up your statement.

According to the link you provided, since the United States has four times the troops in Germany alone, than Russia has everyone-else in the world,
the United States should control .. pretty much, the entire world, by your logic.

Well. Wonderful. More real-estate for us.

Anyway.

Yes, I did mean warheads. My mistake, though, the argument, and the quality of it remains the same. Further, I was discussing Russia's strategic
assets, not China's, save for my quip regarding the submarines.

Lastly, Russia has the potential to be an energy giant. In natural gas, she is one of the top providers, however, if you think the world is in anyway
dependent on Russian Oil, you are a fool.
Modern countries are stymying their personal demands for oil, and those that do are receiving their energy from the much-more established, and stable
OPEC / Saudi Arabia, Halliburton groups.
Because of Russia's desire to 'take-over' its native energy-companies, the prices have not only sky-rocketed, but alienated customers, and damaged
its revenue seemingly irreparably.

You'd do well to learn some basic economics about energy-infrastructure before beginning an argument.
Not to be crude, though, it simply wastes our time when you spout such nonsense, without supporting material, or any basic education.

1) He claims China has only 1 SSBN. He is wrong. No Chinese SSBNs sank. China currently has 2 SSBNs. Reference:

Actually no China currently has only one SSBN operational.

On 02 December 2004 Bill Gertz reported that the new 094-class submarine had been launched in late July 2004. The new Type 094 was spotted
by US intelligence at the Huludao shipyard, on the coast of Bohai Bay, some 250 miles northwest of Beijing. The submarine was in the early stages of
being outfitted and was not yet equipped with new JL-2 submarine-launched nuclear missiles. The Pentagon report on Chinese military power released in
May 2004 stated that the new Chinese missile submarine would not be operational until around 2010.

Originally posted by INeedHelp
2) He claims the PLAAF is weak. How can someone be so ignorant? The PLAAF has 80 H-6 bombers and 40 H-5 bombers. All of these planes can fly to the
US. And the PLAAF also has 14 HY-6 tankers.

Yeah of course they can, assuming of course China and the US weren't at war; otherwise they probably wouldn't get 15 ft of the runway before being
turned into scrap metal.

Originally posted by INeedHelp
Not that the PLA would be superior to the US Military, but the claim that China is so weak that it couldn't retaliate is preposterous.

The PRC is more bark than bite. If it came to war with China and it would inevitably be a nuclear war the US wold annihilate China within the first
48hrs. China as of now is a paper tiger.

Originally posted by Iblis
According to the link you provided, since the United States has four times the troops in Germany alone, than Russia has everyone-else in the world,
the United States should control .. the entire world, by your logic.

I didn't say that they control most of the world just because they deployed 20000 soldiers abroad. I said that they control most of the world
because:
1) they deployed 20000 soldiers abroad
2) they are waging a war against several other nations (e.g. the Georgians)
3) they blackmail us Westerners using oil

if you think the world is in anyway dependent on Russian Oil, you are a fool.

An arrogant person's tactic: if you can't disprove your opponent, insult him. Do you realise that the Russians own most of the world's oil and NG
reserves?

i. The basis of your argument rests on troop deployment, in case you honestly think that waging war on uncivilized, industrial-era countries means you
control any amount of the world, then the point is moot.
[Though again, the United States would win, having deployed far more power to such countries at the present time, than Russia.]
And no, there was no blackmail. It would have been an inconvenience, yes. And a terrible one. But to think Europe would 'crash' if Russia decides to
not put out?
I think not.

How can I not come across as arrogant when you still refuse to cite sources, and when you repeat information in some vain attempt to verify it? Yes, I
all-ready agreed about Russia's reserves. About their production. This is well known -- I simply said it was corrupt, and the literal income was
terrible. For the record, they contain the second-most oil, and are the primary in natural gas.

OPEC, Saudi Arabia, and Halliburton have nothing to do with natural gas..
Again, I'll cite uneducation on your part. I've all-ready agreed, again, that they are the pinnacle of natural gas exportation, as a single company.
However, as Gazprom only provides 25% of natural gas for the European Union, and 9% of Oil, I'll question about how strong a 'pull-out' would be.
Simply more cash for the pro-American Saudi's. [Despite recent tensions.]

So you're saying that, despite all but one customer cited being apart of the old Soviet Union, and unable to create strong international ties, and
having a close proximity to the supplier, this is somehow an indicator of Russia's 'energy status'? I think not. It's simple economics, again.
Quite frankly, when energy is 80% of your exports, Russia has no choice but to continue feeding the rest of the world. To kill the flow would be to
kill Russia.
Meanwhile, it's meager 4% contribution [in oil] to the world as a whole would hardly be a skip in the daily affairs of many.

Russian military deployment is in the tiny ex Soviet Republics ( who could
careless, they make up what >1% of the world. Are you also claiming that the mnassive Russian presence of 100 troops in Africa means they control
Africa ?
As your name implies you really do need help. Logic unfortunately cannot be taught

The Syrians have welcomed the Russian Black See Fleet to their ports. This means that they have accessed the Med. If you don't understand why the Med
is so important, you should learn about that sea before you reply.

blackmail.

Not only Europe was blackmailed, but the Russians cut us off from NG once already - 1 year ago - and later oil. Before they did, they cut off the
Moldovans from NG.

It would have been an inconvenience, yes.

NG is a fuel, i.e. a life essential. How are we going to heat our homes?

OPEC, Saudi Arabia, and Halliburton

I wasn't talking only about oil.

However, as Gazprom only provides 25% of natural gas for the European Union

Wrong. Gazprom currently provides 40% of NG the EU consumes, and as European reserves are shrinking, Gazprom's share of the pie chart will
increase.

and 9% of Oil

I don't know what is the average European percentage, but some nations (e.g. Czechs, Slovakians, Hungarians, Lithuanians) buy all of the oil they
consume from the Russians.

this is somehow an indicator

Yes. When you are a monopolist you control your customers. Gazprom is the sole supplier of the CR, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland and Lithuania.

Quite frankly, when energy is 80% of your exports, Russia has no choice but to continue feeding the rest of the world. To kill the flow would be to
kill Russia.

Europe needs Russia, but Russia doesn't need Europe. Oil and NG reserves are limited geographically, while the entire world needs fuel. So if Europe
refuses to buy Russian oil, Russia will sell it to another country. I'm sure you don't know that
Maloy has written about oil and NG reserves already.

OPEC, Saudi Arabia, and Halliburton have nothing to do with natural gas..
Again, I'll cite uneducation on your part. I've all-ready agreed, again, that they are the pinnacle of natural gas exportation, as a single company.
However, as Gazprom only provides 25% of natural gas for the European Union, and 9% of Oil, I'll question about how strong a 'pull-out' would be.
Simply more cash for the pro-American Saudi's. [Despite recent tensions.]

If you think '25%' and '9%' is measly then you need to wake up.
A sudden curtailment of these percentages will wreak havoc in the energy market in Europe for years before the Saudis are even able to think about
normalising the situation.
And the price of crude/NG in the meantime?
Boy I wouldn't even want to think about it..
The energy market is not that simple you know; you cannot substitute the stemming of one supply zone by simply increasing the net flow from another
without doing major damage/change to the existing price balance.

Europe needs Russia, but Russia doesn't need Europe. Oil and NG reserves are limited geographically, while the entire world needs fuel. So if Europe
refuses to buy Russian oil, Russia will sell it to another country. I'm sure you don't know that

Russia NEEDS Europe.. for reasons that transcend energy supply..
no doubt about it.

Originally posted by rogue1
Not at all, you could say that the ranges were almost even and the US but the uS deployed the missiles ( with comaparble ranges )several years before
teh USSR.

Not SLBM's as i have repeatedly shown you in the past. Before the Ohio's came to the scene two thirds of the USSRs SLBM's could be fired from
port,or protected coastal waters, and still reach thier strategic targets in the US. The trident's came very late and the older missiles were
replaced quite slowly.

You can compare the SOviet SS-N-6 to the C-4 Posiedon. they came out at roughly the same time. Yet teh C-4 was MIRVed.

The R-29 SS-N-8 was the first Soviet sea-based ICBM. Deployed on the Delta-class submarines beginning in 1973, the missile's long range allowed
submarine alert patrols in the marginal ice seas of the Soviet arctic littoral, including the Norwegian and Barents seas. Consequently, Soviet
submarines no longer needed to pass through Western SOSUS sonar barriers to come within range their targets. And deployed close to home, they could be
protected in "bastions" by the rest of the Soviet Navy.

Almost twice the range of the American SLBM's of the time but with a single warhead. Since they could be fired from just off the coast they could
relatively easily be reloaded by tender ships or in whatever facilities remained after the opening shots.

I am relatively sure that with a smaller un-mirved missile more range could be gotten from the Poseidon had the aim been range and not many small ( 50
kt) warheads that were not much use against hardened Soviet targets.

Assuming of course that PLAN and Russian subs could even track a Ohio SSBn, let alone deal with it's escorting SSN.

And back in those days there were no LA class subs and what they did have were significantly outnumbered by submarines that were not inferior if used
in their intended agressive roles.

It also developed a third type of nuclear-powered submarine (called SSGNs) designed specifically to launch cruise missiles against American
aircraft carrier task forces. At its peak in 1980, the Soviet submarine force numbered 480 boats, including 71 fast attacks and 94 cruise and
ballistic missile submarines. Because the names of individual Soviet submarines are seldom known abroad, the usual practice is to refer to them only
as a member of a submarine class. The most widely known class names are those assigned as code names by NATO, such as Alfa, Charlie, and Kilo

The cruise and ballistic missile submarines could all fire torpedoes and while American subs may be able to hide relatively well hiding does not
protect convoys and SSBN's and once forced to reveal their position by firing torpedoes shear weight of number would have led to their relatively
quick demise. Not being noisy is great for getting off the first shot but that is only helpful when you are not outnumbered by such wide margins.

I've got no idea where you got this info from, teh Russian system moire accurate lol.

I'm not sure if it's currently more accurate but it seems it may be or can be if it deploys the same number of satellites as the GPS system

PLease you tlaking about GLONASS. It deploys far fewer satellites emaingin it is far less accurate, not to mention the technology probably
isn't up to US standard. As well teh US are starting to deploy their next generation GPS.

The GLONASS as well as GPS system allows determine object’s position and speed practically in every place on Earth except for polar areas. 24
GPS satellites (number of satellites is reduced at present) moving at the height of 19130 km above the Earth are the basis of the system. The
satellites are moving along 3 orbital trajectories. The trajectories’ planes are extended at an angle of 64,8 degrees. The GLONASS satellites
transmit special signals within 1598,0625 - 1604,25 band.

The navigational signals transmitted by the satellites are received by GLONASS-receivers. These receivers determine object’s position by the method
of received signals’ triangulation. Used by the civil marines the code allows determine position of an object with the accuracy up to 50 - 70
meters. In the mode of usual access the GLONASS system exceeds the GPS system in accuracy, at the same time providing opportunity for operation in
areas of higher latitudes.

The system offers a standard C/A positioning and timing service giving horizontal position accuracy within 180 feet (55 meters) and vertical
position within 230 feet (70 meters) based on measurements from four satellite signals. P is a more accurate signal for Russian military use.

There are very few inexpensive GLONASS-only receivers for consumers on the market. However, commercial GPS receivers often are capable of receiving
both NAVSTAR and GLONASS data.

This GLONASS system provides accuracy that is better than GPS with SA on and worse than GPS with SA ( edit: selective availability restricted to
certain authorities) off.

A comparative overview of GPS and GLONASS is apropos before proceeding.
GPS and the Russian GLONASS system have some similarities and some
substantial differences as well. While GPS space vehicles operate with one L1
frequency for the entire constellation, GLONASS satellites each have their own
discrete frequency. The frequency allocation scheme for GLONASS, which
employs the Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) technique, is 1602 +

K(0.5625) MHz , where K = the frequency channel number. Each GLONASS
satellite is identified by a unique orbital slot number.
Another difference between the two SATNAV systems is that the Russian
government does not implement a policy of signal degradation on the L1
frequency. Hence, the stand alone accuracy of a GLONASS receiver is
measurably better than that of a CA Code GPS receiver. L1 GLONASS rms
accuracy is about 16 meters; L1 GPS is 100 meters rms with SA on

I see no reason to think that the Russian military don't have a selective availability aswell or that it should be far less accurate than the GPS
one...

Also I haven't heard of ay directed energy weapons being able to reach out to a GEO orbit 33000 miles high. Please link to some info about
this.

I don't recall having specific information that suggests this to be the case but considering the mid 70's capability to 'permanently disable' spy
satellites it's what i believe to be true.... I can always go look if you want me too.

Bursting warheads that high will do far less damage to targets even soft ones that 1-3 km above ground.

I was attemping to point out that a 25-50 kt ABM warhead would not do ground damage when exploded at their designed intercept altitudes.

What size warheads are you tlaking about 20+MT. Because 1MT warheads would cause bugger all damage being burst that high.

The average Russian warhead is in the 450 - 550 KT range and against unhardened targets their best blast effects are achieved at 2-3 km altitudes if
memory serves l. Feel free to do the math or attempt to elaborate on the following graph.

LOL, how about all that rotting junk they ave lying around. And many many links have been posted in teh past, you should read them. But the
Sovs were notorious for their lack of care.

I never have seen you post those sources but i am well aware of the claims being made in the western media...

well it has to fall somehwere doesn't it.

The prevailing winds in Europe will drive it west so it's no great concern of Russia if it comes down in the Atlantic or whever as by the time it
does it's unlikely to pose a great threat to populations who are staying indoors and wearing protective ( any really) clothing.

Air Bursts. An air burst is an explosion in which a weapon is detonated in air at an altitude below 30 km but at sufficient height that the
fireball does not contact the surface of the earth. After such a burst, blast may cause considerable damage and injury. The altitude of an air burst
can be varied to obtain maximum blast effects, maximum thermal effects, desired radiation effects, or a balanced combination of these effects. Burns
to exposed skin may be produced over many square kilometers and eye injuries over a still larger area. Initial nuclear radiation will be a significant
hazard with smaller weapons, but the fallout hazard can be ignored as there is essentially no local fallout from an air burst. The fission products
are generally dispersed over a large area of the globe unless there is local rainfall resulting in localized fallout. In the vicinity of ground zero,
there may be a small area of neutron-induced activity which could be hazardous to troops required to pass through the area. Tactically, air bursts are
the most likely to be used against ground forces.

Actually an airburst means any detonation with doesn't accur when the warhead touches the ground,

That makes little sense...

kinda very obvious. Also the Minuteman wrhead would detonate far coser to teh ground than 6km, more like 2 or less. This would cause far more
damage to soft targets from the dynamic surface shockwave created.

My 6km estimate was for Russian warheads and is probably on the high end for the minuteman considering the hardening efforts the USSR engaged in and
the smaller US warheads.

Russia doesn't need Europe. If Europe won't buy oil from Russia, then the world's #2 oil exporter will sell this fuel to another customer. Name one
time when a country stopped buying oil or NG from another country and the supplier was unable to sell oil/NG to another country.

I apologize. I'll ignore my suspicion that you simply keep restating the argument in different ways as to keep it viable, and ae simply confusing
English. I assume it may be a second language, as you're European? But when you say:
"1) they deployed 20000 soldiers abroad "
I thought you were thinking that,
'they deployed 20000 soldiers abroad'
as apart of your argument.
And the number is about 17,000. According to your own site.

Learning about countries which have very little impact on the world at-large,and which are, and have been historically, bullied by Russia would be of
little consideration of this discussion, or of any personal interest to me. I know about the history -- But the point remains moot, unless there's
some specific event you'd enjoy discussing why it matters, and then cite sources. I want you to take a page from Stellar, and bombard me with
evidence, good or bad, which supports your opinion. Because as of now, restating 'what you meant', and going off your own personal opinion does
little.

Further, I am aware of the Syrian ties, though I don't recall them being apart of this discussion before. And -- what does this new topic change?
Does closing a debt, or nuclear plants, or weapons deals really matter much in a discussion about Russian Nuclear posture? Access to the Mediterranean
is further moot, considering the dismal state of Russia's navy.

And I'm not arguing the cut-off. In fact, one of my sources even discussed it in a cited source. However, raising the price to an absurd amount, or
inflating someone's debt, in a single country, or a small group, none of which have much bearing on Europe, or the world at large does not concern
me. Simply Russia playing with its relatively newfound wealth. [Meaning, the state having subsidized most of the industry.]

You receive natural gas from elsewhere. This isn't someone turning off the switch. It's pulling the dimmers a fair bit down, screwing a bit up,
though certainly repairable.

Neither was I, seeing as I addressed natural gas. I was simply pointing out that you responded to my discussion about those companies with a quip
regarding natural gas. It was incomparable; Square block in the round hole so-to-speak.

Any cited sources for that '40%' statistic? Further, talking about 'reserves shrinking' is moot. In the scale you'd have to be looking at, the
United States reserves would go for the European Union's. The future is too far ahead. [And perhaps much like the United States, Europe will find its
own massive, surprise oilfield soon; regarding last year's findings in the Gulf.]

Again, I was not arguing your post-Soviet Bloc countries. Ever.

Again.

[I'm responding paragraph by paragraph for ease of reading, that's why my response is formatted as it is.]

Russia needs Europe to survive. I'm .. quite frankly, unable to comprehend how you could believe differently.
Neither am I able to figure out how your 'they'll sell to someone else' works into play. This has nothing to do with Europeans refusing to buy
anything.

Lastly -- I recognize that is not a small proportion, though as the post-Soviet Bloc states make up for the majority of those numbers, and Russia
all-ready intimidates them enough, and as they are not apart of wester-Europe, ie. modern Europe, I did not factor them in. They'd be an argument
unto themselves.

Originally posted by StellarX
I am relatively sure that with a smaller un-mirved missile more range could be gotten from the Poseidon had the aim been range and not many small ( 50
kt) warheads that were not much use against hardened Soviet targets.

Well teh SS-N-8 wth a 2km CEP would havbugger all effect as well.

And back in those days there were no LA class subs and what they did have were significantly outnumbered by submarines that were not inferior if used
in their intended agressive roles.

According to who ? America has always had a technological edge over the SOviets. The Soviets built junk as can be evidenced from teh November Class
SSN's which irradiated their crew, due to improper shielding. they were also extremely noisy.

The cruise and ballistic missile submarines could all fire torpedoes and while American subs may be able to hide relatively well hiding does not
protect convoys and SSBN's and once forced to reveal their position by firing torpedoes shear weight of number would have led to their relatively
quick demise. Not being noisy is great for getting off the first shot but that is only helpful when you are not outnumbered by such wide margins.

LMAO, what you think teh Soviets hunted in wolfpacks ? If the Soviet subs had been packed so tightly they would hvae been decimated by NATO ASW
forces, such as the P-3 Orion.

I'm not sure if it's currently more accurate but it seems it may be or can be if it deploys the same number of satellites as the GPS
system

But you said more accurate, more bluster from you I guess. All websited quote more accuracy from GPS than GLONASS.

I see no reason to think that the Russian military don't have a selective availability aswell or that it should be far less accurate than the GPS
one...

But you really hvae no odea, just your typical supposition.

I don't recall having specific information that suggests this to be the case but considering the mid 70's capability to 'permanently disable' spy
satellites it's what i believe to be true.... I can always go look if you want me too.

Exactly you don't hvae any information, please go and look. Obviously you already hvae and have found nothing otherwise we could expect a torrent of
cut and pastes from you.

I was attemping to point out that a 25-50 kt ABM warhead would not do ground damage when exploded at their designed intercept altitudes.

No you weren't at all, you were tlaking about ICBM blast damage which you were completely wrong.

The average Russian warhead is in the 450 - 550 KT range and against unhardened targets their best blast effects are achieved at 2-3 km altitudes if
memory serves l. Feel free to do the math or attempt to elaborate on the following graph.

Gee how surprising repeating exactly what I said. Thnaks for the backup but not needed, I know my stuff.

I never have seen you post those sources but i am well aware of the claims being made in the western media...

Of course you have much more reliable secret inforamtion ....LOL.

The prevailing winds in Europe will drive it west so it's no great concern of Russia if it comes down in the Atlantic or whever as by the time it
does it's unlikely to pose a great threat to populations who are staying indoors and wearing protective ( any really) clothing.

Actiually it would cover the northern hemisphere within a day or 2.

y an airburst means any detonation with doesn't accur when the warhead touches the ground,

That makes little sense...

LOl it doesn't. It explodes in the and not when it hits the ground, hence air-burst, you can understand English ?

My 6km estimate was for Russian warheads and is probably on the high end

LOL once again you critisize your own posts. You just stated above it would be 2-3 kn. Gotta laugh when you backtrack so blatantly and al in the same
post.

I apologize. I'll ignore my suspicion that you simply keep restating the argument in different ways as to keep it viable, and ae simply confusing
English. I assume it may be a second language, as you're European?

I'm a British citizen. And don't even try to pretend I speak English badly, because I do so better than you do. I can point out the mistakes YOU
have made if I'll want to do so.

But when you say:
"1) they deployed 20000 soldiers abroad "
I thought you were thinking that,
'they deployed 20000 soldiers abroad'
as apart of your argument.
And the number is about 17,000. According to your own site.

I can't be bothered to remember every number cited by GS, and 17000 is not terribly different than 20000.

Because as of now, restating 'what you meant'

I also cite sources. You are doing even less than me.

And -- what does this new topic change?

Ever heard of a sea called the Med? I've already said the Med is important, and if you don't know why is it important, you should learn why before
you reply.

Access to the Mediterranean is further moot, considering the dismal state of the Russian navy.

The Russian navy has more ships than all European navies (except the British
and French navies) combined. Read

And I'm not arguing the cut-off. In fact, one of my sources even discussed it in a cited source. However, raising the price

They didn't just raise the price, they stopped delivering NG to us altogether, and then stopped delivering oil to us altogether.

You receive natural gas from elsewhere.

We Brits do (Gazprom's share of our pie chart is 2%, we provide the rest for ourselves), but not every nation has large NG resources. Most European
nations don't. Most of those nations are supplied by only ONE supplier: Russia. They could theoretically buy NG from someone else, but their
governments deliberately allowed Gazprom to become a monopolist.

Any cited sources for that '40%' statistic?

To be exact, the 40% statistic relates to Germany and when the Baltic pipeline is complete
then Gazprom's share of the German pie chart will increase.

Russia needs Europe to survive.

No, it doesn't. Read Maloy's post.

I'm .. quite frankly, unable to comprehend how you could believe differently.

Yes, you are, because you are unknowledgeable.

Neither am I able to figure out how your 'they'll sell to someone else' works

Last week the Chinese president visited Russia and said he wants to sign a contract with Gazprom. The Chinese need more NG than we do and are willing
to buy it from the Russians, so if we refuse to buy it then how do you think, will the Russians cry?

The Greeks have just signed a contract with the Russians. This contract says that the
Greeks will be buying NG from the Russians until 2040. The Greeks already buy 80% of the NG they consume from the Russians and want to build more
NG-fired electric plants, which will double the quantity of NG they consume yearly.

Retaliating with useless personal attacks against an honest statement? I simply thought you didn't know how to get a point across, though voiced my
suspicion.

Further, it was -your- cited evidence, so keep with it. And yes, 3,000 is a large number. A large enough number that that amount of casualties is
dissuading the American public from Iraq.

I've cited four. You can't even keep even with your one -direct- link.

Again, I all-ready admitted to the Mediterranean, though noting it's relatively useless if Russia has nothing to put in it. I never contested the
usefulness of the Mediterranean. Again.

So, the Russian navy has more 'ships', which are in debate-able condition, than all land-locked European countries combined? I am amazed. Simply
amazed.

To how many? If I recall, this happened, individually, to two, three countries? All post-Soviet. If you think Russia can simply turn-off the switch
without consequences, you're wrong, and I don't need sources to say that.

Yes. Because governments love when they well-being is kept in monopoly by a corroding, corrupt, old Cold-War nemesis.

Can you come up with an argument for your own?

I'm knowledgeable because you cannot make concise, clear arguments? How about clearing it up, rather than more personal attacks?

This is true. China needs resources, and being geographically close, and a long-time ally, this was pretty much a given. However, if you think the
Chinese have a limitless demand for the stuff, you'd be wrong. If you think Russia can survive economically, without exporting natural gas to what
few mainland European countries trade with it, you're wrong. If you think Russia 'turning off the switch' could happen without facing consequences,
you're wrong.

INeedHelp, you sound more like a raving lunatic. You have not proven anything you ahve said at all. I'm still waiting fr you to show how Russia
controls most of the world

What's with all this emphasis on Greece, who gives 2 hoots. They are about as important as some Africa 3rd world country. If anything all the links
you post prove the exact opposite of what you're saying., What's even funnier is you claim you a re knowledgabel

You are about as far from
knowledgable as anyone I have come across.

You will never ever be able to back up what you claim because you are completely and utterly wrong. LOL.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.